[QUOTE]Originally posted by Muse Swordsman:I believe that todays weapons such as guns and bombs are the lowest form of weaponry. A child can pull a trigger or press a button. Old world weapons(staffs,swords,the body)are true art forms and take practice over years of training to master . I just want to know if there are others out there who feel how I do. [/QUOTE]

Does it really matter? How a human is killed is irrelevant, death is the same no matter what way it happens.

A child may be able to press the trigger of a bomb but an untrained child cannot re-load, unjam, clean, strip down, aim or a fire a fully automatic weapon with the accuracy of a trained marksman. Marksmanship is not to be underrated, you have wind velocity, trajectory, distance, vision, movement and gauge to consider before making a shot. Firing a gun takes skill but you can kill using a gun wihout much fire-arms skill just as I could kill with a sword wihtout having much sword-man skills.

Bombs, there is an art to making bombs, the bomb maker knows his stuff, blast radius, material to use, kill type and trigger-trip wire or manual. Make shift boobitraps etc, all these things are skills used in war time just a more efficient way of "killing".

The blade is silent so will always have a place in war.

[QUOTE]Old world weapons(staffs,swords,the body)are true art forms and take practice over years of training to master.[/QUOTE]

dude, knowing how to shoot a weapon with skill takes as much time as it would to learn how to kill someone skillfully with a sword, at the end of the day it doesnt take much to swing a sword or pull a trigger but to do it skillfuly using either takes a lot of practice.

weather a gun and a sword is honerable is irreverlant. they are both wepons and require respect. they both require skill. a wepon in the hands of someone that doesnot know what they are doing can be dangerous. just as a sword is usless in the hands of someone that is not skilled so is a gun or rifle. with a rifle it requires control of breathing and masteory of the body to be able to use. the recoil and suttle diffrences in how you hold a wepon can cause anyone to miss their target. can shoot some one as easyly as stabing them.

I have to say that as a soldier in the British Red Berets Airborne forces (2 Para) and having fought in the recent Gulf war against Iraq i totally disagree that there is no skill to modern weapons. Me and my men have to know first how to use the ground, it's cover and how to spot our enemy who will be trying his best also to use any cover he can find, then it's comes down to how best to take out that threat. It's no good blazing away. We could choose to have Delta giving suprresive fire while i take Charlie team either right or left flanking before taking my grenadier onto that position and assaulting it. Fire and maneuvere has to be mastered also. wether it be individual fire maneuver as a team of two men..Pairs fire and manevere as a fire team of four men.Squads fire and mmaneuvere as part of a section and so on and so forth. Also, the honour in fighting and killing comes from men and women who fight for the freedom and liberty of others. I think that anyone fighting forthose things, for the sake of others, are extremely honourable indeed. And i say this not onnly because i have fought in Iraq, but because the people i fought alongside deserve that recognition also.

having so far no experience with swords or other martial arts equipment i can only really give a view on guns. i have shot just about every type of gun there is during my service in the air force (hand, shot, rifel((cant spell)) etc) any weapon used against someone is effective but wrong ALWAYS! guns can be just as fun or interesting as a martial art. there is different tecniques and ways of doing it but just as with martial arts if it is done in a controled enviroment its perfectly safe. weapons are designed to kill plane and simple but it doesnt mean they all have to be used for that! guns are favoured more now than knifes and swords because they are quick and easy and can be done from a distance! not dissing anyone's point of view but i agree with the majority. a weapon is only as deadly as the person who holds it!

I accept that skills are required for whatever type of fighting is involved.

The origional post was I believe slightly different from that which you have suggested.

Yes, armies and soldiers are needed, but to state that there is honour in fighting for the freedom and liberty of others is while a natural thing to say, is not necessarily true. Armies and soldiers do not decide who they fight with and for what reasons. This is left with the governments and individuals who have interests that they consider far above honour and nothing to do with the freedom and liberty of others.

I have a number of friends in the armed forces and hold their proffesionalism in the highest regard.

But as for honour, I don't think it's necessarily to be found in wars.

Ok let's look at this...after the Warring States Period, Japan moved into its Dueling Phase. The Sword Arts Iaijutsu & Battojutsu were referred to by the peasants as "Crossroads Murder". You have romanticized the sword, because back then, the Samurai had rights while the peasants had none, as a result, these thugs had no penalties for testing their skill on unarmed individuals...just to see if they'd mastered the kill in one cut.

While there was a lot of honor, there were also plenty without. Musashi is heralded as Japan's greatest swordsman...and yet this guy cheated and was without honor.

Musashi stated that he owed his life to the fact that he had not encountered an experienced fighter earlier in his career and so he had a chance to learn.

Musashi violated the Japanese sensibilities by avoiding bathing for over a month, so that when he encountered his foe he stunk to high heaven...further distracting his opponent.

In addition Musashi would issue his challenges to occur a 1/2 hour before or sunrise or sunset. He would never show up on time, he'd let his opponenets adrenaline flush through their bodies as the time neared, and in the case of the morning challenges to let the chill hamper the warrior. At the time of sunrise or sunset he would finally appear, when the opponent had thought that he would be a no show. Musashi would come with the sun behind him & in most cases the opponent never saw his sword stroke.

In terms of the Japanese Musashi was considered huge and was considerably taller than the average Japanese. His already natural reach was longer than his opponents & was further extended when he chose to switch tactics and wield the sword with one hand.

As someone else pointed out...despite the thousands of lives, it was guns that enabled the Japanese to finally unite their nation under one ruler. Tokugawa recognized the power of the gun & after becoming Shogun realized that it was possible for other warlords to band together and use this same weapon to unseat him. So Tokugawa did 2 things, he began insinuating that the Daimyo were above entering combat and that such actions were for lessers. The purpose of this tactic was to reduce the number of Lords who had combat experience (( like he had )).

The second tactic was to over time remove the gun. Japan actually had larger gun and cannon battles than in Europe...but by the time Admiral Perry reached Japan, the nation had almost completely unlearned the art of firearms and cannons. Had Japan not unlearned firearms, Perry would never have been able to force Japan into opening her doors.

To associate modern weaponry as being completely lacking in skill and the weapon of sloths is stupid. I served 4 years in the Marines & heartily agree with the other servicemen -- to say that we aren't warrior & are lacking in skill is both foolish & shows yourselves to be completely lacking in any understanding of warfare. To be able to drop an opponent with one shot from 500 meters away is a skill, for a sharpshooter to take out the bad guy without hitting the hostage is a skill.

In Afghanistan, it hasn't been all push button weapons, our forces have battled in hand to hand engagements as well. In Iraq, our guys are constantly in a flux where things could go either firearms or hand to hand.

In WW II, our planes would have to shoot between 50 & 70 rockets to take out one Tank. Now it's one weapon to take out one tank. During Iraqi Freedom, we showed our weaponry to be accurate enough to take out tanks without harming the bridges they were parked under. The people of Afghanistan & Iraq have praised our advanced weaponry and instead of hiding, many have reported stayed and watching some of these battles like fireworks displays...because they don't fear getting hit from stray fire.

There are a whole host of skills when it comes to the modern warrior, be it firearms, bayonet fighting, hand-to-hand etc...but the good old days in Japan weren't so good if you were a Peasant for whom it was perfectly legal for the Samurai to kill you because you were available for them to practise their Iaijutsu or Battojutsu or because you hadn't dared to bow deeply enough for them.

If I were to kill someone with a gun, it follows that they are dead. If I kill them with a blade They are not any more or less dead. I'm 100% for the study and pursuit of swordsmanship, but, to say that a sword is superior to a gun is utter foolishness. They are both weapons for killing. I can kill you with a sword, and I can kill you with a gun. Both ways your dead.

You seem to have romanticised the past by attributing honour and glory to people who used the weapons of their time.

Garbage.

The samurai at their time were the thugs of the day.

A thug then would be a thug now, regardless of the weapons used.

JohnL

[/QUOTE]

Maybe... Which of us can brand each samurai with the title of "thug". We were not alive then and all we have today are remnants of the past. Remnants that do not give details of every single samurai. Before you make judgements such as that you should think. As for the debate on the swords and the firearms, My opinion is as follows: A sword is a weapon that is used to kill. Learning the art of the sword is learning how to kill. As with the gun, it is the same. Learning the art of the gun is also learning how to kill. However people are different, that indeed they are. How a weapon is used depends on that individual. In wars, guns are used to kill, not to save. Like in the elder days of Japan, before the annihilation of the samurai and the coming of the Meiji Era, people fought using swords. people would kill using the sword. There were some though who used their swords to save people, instead of kill. This same principle can be applied to the gun. One does not have to aim for the head or a vital area. As with a sword, one does not have to decapitate or strike a fatal blow. I have seen two Japanese anime in which these principles are always applied. They are "Rurouni Kenshin" and "Trigun". If you ever have the chance, watch these. I live by the art of protecting the lives of all and using the sword to save and not kill. I know it is not possible for this ideal to spread throughout the world for it has changed, people have changed. But the fact still remains; a weapon is a tool for killing unless wielded by one who would use it in an otherwise way.

Hogtooth is absolutely right, I think he makes the most sense of any of you guys. don't get me wrong, I still love traditional weaponry, I just think hogtooth knows what he is talking about and I for one agree with him.